3 ms·

A few felony convictions? This isn't stealing a car or passing a bad check. These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found b

A few felony convictions? This isn't stealing a car or passing a bad check. These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. There are anti-logging and anti-pipeline protests where canada's cops have used similar surveillance. Those are the better situations for winning civil liberties debates. The trucker protests are very much an uphill arguement.

themaninthedark 4y ago
If you can't defend your rights in the worst case situation, then you will lose them. something something essential liberty for immediate security...
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > something something essential liberty for immediate security... Something something quote taken out of context and repeated mindlessly
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Cops signed up for the job knowing they might get shot at. Avoiding a bad day at work isn't grounds for violating people's rights.
southernplaces7 4y ago
>These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Could you define and point to evidence of exactly how many of "these guys" there were doing this? Can the government with its penchant for mendacity? There were many thousands and thousands of protestors. It's not hard to find a few casually discussing illegal activity and using that as a justification for painting the rest black. >Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. No, this is exactly the best situation for arguing in favor of not blatantly violating civil liberties, because it should especially be argued for groups that aren't part of the social mainstream. That's the real test of how seriously a country takes such rules about civil liberties. Any asshole can argue for civil liberties in favor of widely popular, media-favored protests against logging and pipelines.

themaninthedark 4y ago

If you can't defend your rights in the worst case situation, then you will lose them. something something essential liberty for immediate security...

raverbashing 4y ago
> something something essential liberty for immediate security... Something something quote taken out of context and repeated mindlessly

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Cops signed up for the job knowing they might get shot at. Avoiding a bad day at work isn't grounds for violating people's rights.

southernplaces7 4y ago

>These guys are charged with conspiring to kill police officers. They were found bringing guns and tactical items to a remote protest location while chatting about using those guns to kill people. Could you define and point to evidence of exactly how many of "these guys" there were doing this? Can the government with its penchant for mendacity? There were many thousands and thousands of protestors. It's not hard to find a few casually discussing illegal activity and using that as a justification for painting the rest black. >Even if the cops were violating people's rights, this is not the best situation to be arguing for civil liberties. No, this is exactly the best situation for arguing in favor of not blatantly violating civil liberties, because it should especially be argued for groups that aren't part of the social mainstream. That's the real test of how seriously a country takes such rules about civil liberties. Any asshole can argue for civil liberties in favor of widely popular, media-favored protests against logging and pipelines.